FinancialQ
Registered User
- Messages
- 23
Doesn't sound too promising. When did you get your last update or have they given you one.
How long for the Ombudsman to process a Tracker Complaint
- Thread starter Dpdp01050842
- Start date
SaySomething
Registered User
- Messages
- 658
Non tracker is a different adjudication period as far as I'm aware so you probably won't have as long to wait at all.
SaySomething
Registered User
- Messages
- 658
Likewise we are now into our 20th month at adjudication stage. We were originally told 6-12 months, this was moved shortly afterwards to 12-18 months. We were informed late 2022 that our case was at final stages and to expect preliminary decision in early new year but still nothing.
FinancialQ
Registered User
- Messages
- 23
That's good to hear. Where did you hear that or do you have any idea what kind of a difference there is time wise.
SaySomething
Registered User
- Messages
- 658
We're now at the 2 year mark in adjudication.
No sign of a preliminary decision although we have been told that we are in the advanced stages.
Has anybody else waiting moved forward to preliminary decision?
No sign of a preliminary decision although we have been told that we are in the advanced stages.
Has anybody else waiting moved forward to preliminary decision?
SaySomething
Registered User
- Messages
- 658
Happy New Year! I'm updating this thread once again so that others in the same process can stay informed.
We made a tracker complaint to the Ombudsman over 4 years ago. We have been told that our case has completed adjudication. This process took 26-27 months. In late 2022 we were informed our file was at final stages and to expect a decision in the New Year this was rescinded in early 2023.
Now, over 31 months since we entered into adjudication we have yet to receive a preliminary decision. Until the decision is reviewed by the 'named signatory' we have to wait. We have no indication of how long this will take.
Our entitlement to a tracker is not in question, we already received a refund under the tracker mortgage examination scheme. Our complaint is an objection to the level of compensation offered along with other associated banking issues. We were awarded a higher level of compensation by the appeals panel but opted to reject that offer and move to the Ombudsman. We are aware of the risk involved in taking this complaint.
We made a tracker complaint to the Ombudsman over 4 years ago. We have been told that our case has completed adjudication. This process took 26-27 months. In late 2022 we were informed our file was at final stages and to expect a decision in the New Year this was rescinded in early 2023.
Now, over 31 months since we entered into adjudication we have yet to receive a preliminary decision. Until the decision is reviewed by the 'named signatory' we have to wait. We have no indication of how long this will take.
Our entitlement to a tracker is not in question, we already received a refund under the tracker mortgage examination scheme. Our complaint is an objection to the level of compensation offered along with other associated banking issues. We were awarded a higher level of compensation by the appeals panel but opted to reject that offer and move to the Ombudsman. We are aware of the risk involved in taking this complaint.
Hi SaySomething, I am still in a similar situation as you. I have been told the preliminary decision may be signed off within the first quarter of 2024. It has been postponed many times.
It is impossible to understand how this is possible to have no timeframe when it is the banks at fault. We have already has one account that was deemed impacted and had redress for this over two years ago. This other mortgage account for the same mortgage was overlooked.
How can the appeals process take so many years when the banks are making such profits with no obligations to do right by their customers within any time frame? Surely the penalties charged to the banks are used to ensure there are sufficient funds to employ staff for an efficient appeals board. Is it not now paramount that these staff can then work within a certain time frame to ensure outcomes and decisions are made in a timely respectful fashion. The lengthy process delays are incredible.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,967
I presume you are talking about the Ombudsman and not the Independent Appeals Process run by the banks themselves?
Each decision of the Ombudsman must be signed off by either the Ombudsman or one of his two(?) deputies.
Although it is supposed to be an informal, non-legalistic, and speedy purpose, it has become legalistic. Mainly because the financial institution can appeal the decision to the High Court. I was at one of the Ulster Bank appeals of an Ombudsman decision and Ulster Bank really went for the Ombudsman on the decision. The Ombudsman had covered himself very well but in any long decision, there were, of course, points which could be attacked by Ulster Bank.
I do think that the system should be changed so that for small decisions without any implications for others, a lower level employee could sign off the decision.
Brendan
SaySomething
Registered User
- Messages
- 658
It's not really indicative of how long the process actually takes. The investigation stage can drag on years, especially if you get caught in a cycle of responding to whatever the bank says.
It's only when adjudication commences that the clock starts ticking in comparison to other complaints. So saying your case is with the FSPO for 5 years isn't the bigger picture. How long have you been in adjudication?
Article in today's Independent on delay being over 5 years.
One of the difficulties for FSPO is that they now publish their decisions in line with the 2017 Act.
To be blunt many of the issues can be contractual in nature and I don't believe from reading some of the decisions that FSPO office have those skills. All very well whilst these decisions were not available.
Also I have not seen them refer to Unfair Contract Terms in decisions which is problematic particularly the way ECJ has gone on decisions. We still have no non-court body on this but FSPO ought to be using it.
On the first point - if FIs adopt position coming out of FSPO and another decision is totally different - FSPO not obliged to follow precedent but supposed to explain why not - this is then quite frankly bonkers now that the cases are published. I think what that leads to is a Judicial Review and despite the widest 'curial deference' given to FSPO, even the great Judge Kelly would be stretched to allow that to continue.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced that during its next term it will hear a case that could overturn Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under Chevron, a court defers to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, as long as the judge finds the interpretation to be reasonable. If the court limits or upends the Chevron doctrine, the ruling would pull back the leeway that agencies have had in interpreting statutes.
Given that this is also common law jurisdiction and Irish jurisprudence pays attention to U.S. who knows what will happen. Many view the curiial deference as going too far. When a case comes up with FSPO deciding one way and then the complete opposite and is appealed it could be a major problem for FSPO.
One of the difficulties for FSPO is that they now publish their decisions in line with the 2017 Act.
To be blunt many of the issues can be contractual in nature and I don't believe from reading some of the decisions that FSPO office have those skills. All very well whilst these decisions were not available.
Also I have not seen them refer to Unfair Contract Terms in decisions which is problematic particularly the way ECJ has gone on decisions. We still have no non-court body on this but FSPO ought to be using it.
On the first point - if FIs adopt position coming out of FSPO and another decision is totally different - FSPO not obliged to follow precedent but supposed to explain why not - this is then quite frankly bonkers now that the cases are published. I think what that leads to is a Judicial Review and despite the widest 'curial deference' given to FSPO, even the great Judge Kelly would be stretched to allow that to continue.
The U.S. Supreme Court announced that during its next term it will hear a case that could overturn Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under Chevron, a court defers to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, as long as the judge finds the interpretation to be reasonable. If the court limits or upends the Chevron doctrine, the ruling would pull back the leeway that agencies have had in interpreting statutes.
Given that this is also common law jurisdiction and Irish jurisprudence pays attention to U.S. who knows what will happen. Many view the curiial deference as going too far. When a case comes up with FSPO deciding one way and then the complete opposite and is appealed it could be a major problem for FSPO.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,967
Why is publishing the decisions a difficulty?
The FSPO is not bound solely by the contract which is an error that lawyers make all the time in their dealings with the Ombudsman.
Section 12
(11) Subject to this Act, the Ombudsman, when dealing with a particular complaint, shall act in an informal manner and according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the complaint without undue regard to technicality or legal form.
The publication does not make this more onerous. In the Ulster Bank case, it didn't matter whether the decision was published or not. Ulster Bank saw the two conflicting decisions anyway.
I have raised before the problems which conflicting decisions make.
Implications for banks generally of the contradictory Ombudsman's decisions in Ulster Bank case
This thread is not about the Ulster Bank case. Discuss the merits of the UB case in this thread: https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/thousands-of-ulster-bank-customers-to-get-redress-after-ombudsmans-decision.231620/ But I think that it raises serious issues for financial institutions and...
www.askaboutmoney.com
@brendanburgess publication of the decisions does a number of things. First and importantly it reflect that quasi judicial decisions are to be done in public - similar to WRC. Second it means the decisions are open to scrutiny.
None of these things are necessarily bad.
However undue regard to legal or technical form does not go so far to say X is a contact or X isn't a contract. It allows for degrees of difference but is not turning day into night. In fact many of the conflicting decisions could be explained away by Unfair Contract Terms Directive - I just have not seen the FSPO even mention this and yet the EU Commission made a whole report available on the matter. So Europe believes its important for consumers and I happen to agree. Further had it featured with FSPO they could have avoided their biggest car crash on tracker saga.
Ulster Bank itself may have known about several of its own cases - but many of the UB cases were firmly in the realm of unfair contract terms. This is an important drum to keep beating. A good example of change in CoJ was where a term was buried in a contract and when alterations such as fixed rate assumed that you recalled the term in the original contract without it being brought to your attention,
I am highlighting a different sort of case that would not become an issue but for the publication. This raises the game and will raise the curial deference debate. But importantly could undermine FSPO further.
None of these things are necessarily bad.
However undue regard to legal or technical form does not go so far to say X is a contact or X isn't a contract. It allows for degrees of difference but is not turning day into night. In fact many of the conflicting decisions could be explained away by Unfair Contract Terms Directive - I just have not seen the FSPO even mention this and yet the EU Commission made a whole report available on the matter. So Europe believes its important for consumers and I happen to agree. Further had it featured with FSPO they could have avoided their biggest car crash on tracker saga.
Ulster Bank itself may have known about several of its own cases - but many of the UB cases were firmly in the realm of unfair contract terms. This is an important drum to keep beating. A good example of change in CoJ was where a term was buried in a contract and when alterations such as fixed rate assumed that you recalled the term in the original contract without it being brought to your attention,
I am highlighting a different sort of case that would not become an issue but for the publication. This raises the game and will raise the curial deference debate. But importantly could undermine FSPO further.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,967
Sorry Dr. The car crash is your opinion.
I have disagreed with some of the FSPO's decisions just as I have disagreed with some of the courts' decisions. That does not make them wrong, much less a car crash.
Overall, the Ombudsman has served tracker customers very well. The above "undue regard to technicality or legal form" has meant that the Ombudsman has upheld many complaints which would have been dismissed by the courts.
Brendan
My learned friend i give you Bill Prafiska - and a list of cases that would make you weep.
I repeat that Unfair Terms in Contract Directive would have averted what you deny is a car crash. Overall FSPO may have performed better afterwards.
I repeat that the "undue regard to technicality or legal form" cannot turn a pig's ear into a silk purse. Undue does not mean ignore. That is the part I am referring to. Also Companies have a constitutional rights which cannot be trampled on by over application of a section of the Act that was designed to reduce undue harshness if strict legal view was taken not by the miracle of turning water into wine.
I repeat that Unfair Terms in Contract Directive would have averted what you deny is a car crash. Overall FSPO may have performed better afterwards.
I repeat that the "undue regard to technicality or legal form" cannot turn a pig's ear into a silk purse. Undue does not mean ignore. That is the part I am referring to. Also Companies have a constitutional rights which cannot be trampled on by over application of a section of the Act that was designed to reduce undue harshness if strict legal view was taken not by the miracle of turning water into wine.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,967
And I am sure that the industry would give you Ger Deering and a list of cases which would make them weep.
I am also sure that the legal profession will give you a list of High Court decisions which would make one side or the other weep.
With the Ombudsman, I might weep, but I won't be wiped out financially.
If a consumer goes to the High Court and loses, they would well be wiped out making the legal profession even richer.
Brendan
The very creature that turned some water into wine - coming soon !
I would have advocated for funding of such cases - but I don't write policy. I would not be defending that there is adequate access to the Courts - there isn't.
The current waiting time for sorting out cases to me reflects inexperience or over bureaucracy in FSPO or maybe its a shortage of staff. I could of course be wrong. But we seem amazingly incompetent in this country at managing any service at State level - unless like the Passport Office or Revenue somebody takes the bull by the horns and drives it through.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,967
I agree that it's taking too long - whatever the reason.
I have seen 20 page written decisions on relatively minor complaints. That seems like overkill, but I think that they are worried about being challenged by the provider and so have to cross their t's and dot their i's.
I have also recommended that they take systemic issues on which they have multiple complaints and prioritise those. That would resolve a lot of issues much more quickly.
But don't forget that a lot of their complaints are actually resolved through mediation. So while the complaints which go the full distance do take too long, the average time for resolving a complaint is much shorter.
Brendan
I have seen 20 page written decisions on relatively minor complaints. That seems like overkill, but I think that they are worried about being challenged by the provider and so have to cross their t's and dot their i's.
I have also recommended that they take systemic issues on which they have multiple complaints and prioritise those. That would resolve a lot of issues much more quickly.
But don't forget that a lot of their complaints are actually resolved through mediation. So while the complaints which go the full distance do take too long, the average time for resolving a complaint is much shorter.
Brendan
As most tracker complaints are rejected I cannot see but that the providers are quite happy with the delay and the process being overkill. It is those of us waiting on decisions for years that is surreal. I had one account where I had 16k redress repaid in 2019. It makes little sense to take five years to address the few appeals that go beyond mediation. It appears the banks have nothing to loose only the customers...yet again.